jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
Any difference in your life? Nope.....
So why not terminate those 800,000 "workers"
So why not terminate those 800,000 "workers"
800,000 federal workers mia today...so
- Thread starter jeninflorida
- Start date
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
These people are not working today....
Is there any difference?
Tell me, why do we have them?
Terminate the 800,000 federation employees today and put the pay and ponzi money to good use!
Is there any difference?
Tell me, why do we have them?
Terminate the 800,000 federation employees today and put the pay and ponzi money to good use!
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
So the economy is only growing and or surviving based on stimulas.
Why does obama hate America with his shitty economic policies?
Oh wait, you are a tax consumer and dont experience "economy"
Why does obama hate America with his shitty economic policies?
Oh wait, you are a tax consumer and dont experience "economy"
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Republicans Are Clearly Happy to Destroy the Country...If They Can Get Political Leverage Out of It
August 6, 2013 |
On Sunday’s edition of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint [3] if the Republican Party was ready to “shoot the hostage” and shut down the federal government over funding Obamacare.
Wallace asked DeMint, “But, Senator, what they say, you know, is you don't take a hostage unless you're prepared to shoot him. And if you're going to go down this road, are you prepared to shut down the government? Because the Democrats are not going to go along with this.”
Unfortunately, DeMint dodged the question, and didn’t say whether or not Republicans were ready to “shoot the hostage,” in this case, the American people.
Jim DeMint refused to answer Chris Wallace’s question, but the real answer is that Republicans have been “shooting the hostage” ever since President Obama was first inaugurated. Their “hostage taking plans” were laid out back on the night of January 20, 2009, while the President and many others in Washington, D.C. were attending inaugural balls.
On that night in a private room at the Caucus Room restaurant in Washington, Republican leaders plotted to intentionally sabotage and undermine the Obama presidency at every turn, no matter how much damage it did to the American people.
Remember, at that time 700,000 people a month were losing their jobs and the American economy was in the most horrible tailspin since the Great Depression.
And the Republicans wanted to keep it that way.
As Robert Draper documented in his book [4] "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives," on the guest list for the four hour [5] “invitation only” meeting were Republican Congressmen Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra and Dan Lungren.
Republican Senators included Tom Coburn, John Ensign, Bob Corker, Jon Kyl and now-Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint.
Newt Gingrich was also in attendance and on my radio show a few months ago, he bragged that the purpose of the dinner meeting was to come up with a plan to sabotage the Obama presidency.
After all, he said that, “the opposition party ought to sit down and try to figure out how to get back in power. That’s why they’re the opposition party.”
During the dinner, the Republican conspirators vowed to bring Congress to a standstill, regardless of how badly Congressional inaction would hurt the already hurting American economy and people.
In essence, they pledged to each other to obstruct filibuster and block any legislation that might improve the economy, and thus make President Obama look good.
While the meeting at the Caucus Room restaurant was top-secret, Republicans who were there very frank, just months later, about what had transpired.
Congressman Pete Sessions told the National Journal in March of 2009 [5] that the Republican sabotage plan would borrow a page from the tactics of the Taliban terrorists.
He said that, “Taliban Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. Insurgency is the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging, to their operations, to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with Democrats on] the other side.”
The Texas Republican went on to say that, “If they [Democrats] do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become Insurgency...I think Insurgency is a mindset and an attitude…”
At the Caucus Room dinner itself, Robert Draper quoted Congressman Kevin McCarthy as saying, “We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill. Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies.”
Looking back from five years later, we can see that the “united and unyielding opposition” that Congressman McCarthy called for is succeeding in harming America and thus preventing President Obama from having any significant progressive successes. Just ask Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel.
In an interview with The Daily Beast [6] published this past Friday, the New York Congressman said that Republicans in the House are doing more damage to American competitiveness, and to the American people, than any terrorist organization could.
Rangel told The Daily Beast that, “What is happening is sabotage. Terrorists couldn’t do a better job than the Republicans are doing.”
And Congressman Rangel is right.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have been relentless in blocking any legislation that may improve the economy and President Obama popularity.
Since President Obama took office, Republicans have filibustered a variety of bills that would have helped the American people and economy.
These include President Obama’s jobs bill, Nancy Pelosi’s “American Jobs, Closing of Loopholes, and Prevention of Outsourcing Act,” which would have prevented the outsourcing of jobs overseas, and the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, which encouraged small businesses to hire by giving them temporary tax credits.
Just last week, Republicans vowed to block President Obama’s attempts to cut corporate tax rates, something Republicans have wanted for years, because to let him do that would be to give him one small victory.
Republicans have also worked very hard to tear down America.
They’ve refused to increase funding to our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, leaving our country stuck in the 19th century.
They’ve voted to slash billions of dollars from social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid, and radically slashed unemployment insurance.
And, in the most blatant form of “shooting the hostage,” Republicans pushed the devastating sequester on the American people, and John Boehner bragged that he got 99 percent of what he wanted.
Since Boehner’s sequester went into effect, millions of Americans have felt its impact.
In Michigan alone, federal unemployment checks have fallen by 10.7 percent since late March, sucking as much as $150 per month out of people’s budgets.
In California, the Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels program has been forced to cut its budget by 5.1 percent, and scale back the number of meals it brings to shut in, disabled and elderly poor people.
Meanwhile, as the sequester cuts continue to ravage our country, Republicans are refusing to support President Obama’s most recent jobs bill, which would have put millions of Americans back to work, and would help solve our nation’s poverty epidemic.
Ever since President Obama’s first inauguration, on the night of January 20, 2009, Republicans have made it clear that they’re very comfortable with “shooting the hostage.”
It seems that even Chris Wallace is beginning to realize that when it comes to Republicans being willing to “shoot the hostage,” it’s really not a matter of “if,” it’s a matter of how much longer they will keep doing it.
August 6, 2013 |
On Sunday’s edition of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint [3] if the Republican Party was ready to “shoot the hostage” and shut down the federal government over funding Obamacare.
Wallace asked DeMint, “But, Senator, what they say, you know, is you don't take a hostage unless you're prepared to shoot him. And if you're going to go down this road, are you prepared to shut down the government? Because the Democrats are not going to go along with this.”
Unfortunately, DeMint dodged the question, and didn’t say whether or not Republicans were ready to “shoot the hostage,” in this case, the American people.
Jim DeMint refused to answer Chris Wallace’s question, but the real answer is that Republicans have been “shooting the hostage” ever since President Obama was first inaugurated. Their “hostage taking plans” were laid out back on the night of January 20, 2009, while the President and many others in Washington, D.C. were attending inaugural balls.
On that night in a private room at the Caucus Room restaurant in Washington, Republican leaders plotted to intentionally sabotage and undermine the Obama presidency at every turn, no matter how much damage it did to the American people.
Remember, at that time 700,000 people a month were losing their jobs and the American economy was in the most horrible tailspin since the Great Depression.
And the Republicans wanted to keep it that way.
As Robert Draper documented in his book [4] "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives," on the guest list for the four hour [5] “invitation only” meeting were Republican Congressmen Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra and Dan Lungren.
Republican Senators included Tom Coburn, John Ensign, Bob Corker, Jon Kyl and now-Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint.
Newt Gingrich was also in attendance and on my radio show a few months ago, he bragged that the purpose of the dinner meeting was to come up with a plan to sabotage the Obama presidency.
After all, he said that, “the opposition party ought to sit down and try to figure out how to get back in power. That’s why they’re the opposition party.”
During the dinner, the Republican conspirators vowed to bring Congress to a standstill, regardless of how badly Congressional inaction would hurt the already hurting American economy and people.
In essence, they pledged to each other to obstruct filibuster and block any legislation that might improve the economy, and thus make President Obama look good.
While the meeting at the Caucus Room restaurant was top-secret, Republicans who were there very frank, just months later, about what had transpired.
Congressman Pete Sessions told the National Journal in March of 2009 [5] that the Republican sabotage plan would borrow a page from the tactics of the Taliban terrorists.
He said that, “Taliban Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. Insurgency is the way they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- is an example of how you go about to change a person from their messaging, to their operations, to their frontline message. And we need to understand that Insurgency may be required when [dealing with Democrats on] the other side.”
The Texas Republican went on to say that, “If they [Democrats] do not give us those options or opportunities then we will then become Insurgency...I think Insurgency is a mindset and an attitude…”
At the Caucus Room dinner itself, Robert Draper quoted Congressman Kevin McCarthy as saying, “We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill. Show united and unyielding opposition to the president’s economic policies.”
Looking back from five years later, we can see that the “united and unyielding opposition” that Congressman McCarthy called for is succeeding in harming America and thus preventing President Obama from having any significant progressive successes. Just ask Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel.
In an interview with The Daily Beast [6] published this past Friday, the New York Congressman said that Republicans in the House are doing more damage to American competitiveness, and to the American people, than any terrorist organization could.
Rangel told The Daily Beast that, “What is happening is sabotage. Terrorists couldn’t do a better job than the Republicans are doing.”
And Congressman Rangel is right.
Republicans on Capitol Hill have been relentless in blocking any legislation that may improve the economy and President Obama popularity.
Since President Obama took office, Republicans have filibustered a variety of bills that would have helped the American people and economy.
These include President Obama’s jobs bill, Nancy Pelosi’s “American Jobs, Closing of Loopholes, and Prevention of Outsourcing Act,” which would have prevented the outsourcing of jobs overseas, and the Small Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act, which encouraged small businesses to hire by giving them temporary tax credits.
Just last week, Republicans vowed to block President Obama’s attempts to cut corporate tax rates, something Republicans have wanted for years, because to let him do that would be to give him one small victory.
Republicans have also worked very hard to tear down America.
They’ve refused to increase funding to our nation’s crumbling infrastructure, leaving our country stuck in the 19th century.
They’ve voted to slash billions of dollars from social safety net programs like food stamps and Medicaid, and radically slashed unemployment insurance.
And, in the most blatant form of “shooting the hostage,” Republicans pushed the devastating sequester on the American people, and John Boehner bragged that he got 99 percent of what he wanted.
Since Boehner’s sequester went into effect, millions of Americans have felt its impact.
In Michigan alone, federal unemployment checks have fallen by 10.7 percent since late March, sucking as much as $150 per month out of people’s budgets.
In California, the Contra Costa County Meals on Wheels program has been forced to cut its budget by 5.1 percent, and scale back the number of meals it brings to shut in, disabled and elderly poor people.
Meanwhile, as the sequester cuts continue to ravage our country, Republicans are refusing to support President Obama’s most recent jobs bill, which would have put millions of Americans back to work, and would help solve our nation’s poverty epidemic.
Ever since President Obama’s first inauguration, on the night of January 20, 2009, Republicans have made it clear that they’re very comfortable with “shooting the hostage.”
It seems that even Chris Wallace is beginning to realize that when it comes to Republicans being willing to “shoot the hostage,” it’s really not a matter of “if,” it’s a matter of how much longer they will keep doing it.
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Thank the GOP for the shutdown and holding the economy hostage
Cutbacks in government spending directly reduce employment and curtail growth. Unfortunately, Republicans don't get that
Dean Baker
theguardian.com, Monday 30 September 2013 10.24 EDT
Jump to comments (89)
A member of the military stands guard at sun rise before the presidential inauguration in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC.
A member of the military stands guard at sun rise before the presidential inauguration in front of the US Capitol in Washington DC. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Here we go again: the GOP is ready to stall the US economy and shut down the government in a crusade to cut government spending. Proponents of austerity both in the United States and Europe are eager to claim success for their policies. In spite of economies that look awful by normal standards, austerity advocates are able to claim victory for their policies by creating a new meaning for the word.
In Europe, we have the bizarre story of both George Osborne, the UK's chancellor of the exchequer, and Olli Rehn, the European Union's commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, claiming success for their austerity policies based on one quarter of growth. Apparently, they are arguing that because their policies did not lead to a never-ending recession, they are a success. Remarkably, they seem very proud of this fact.
In the United States, we were treated to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) boasting of the success of the 2011 debt ceiling agreement on the eve of another standoff on the budget and the debt ceiling. The measure of success in this case appears to be that the sequester budget cuts put in place by the agreement are still in place and that the economy has not collapsed as a result. By this standard the WSJ has a case, but as with the austerity crew in Europe, this is a rather pathetic bar.
First, it is worth noting that many of the disaster warnings about the sequester from President Obama and the Democrats were grossly exaggerated. There was no plausible story in which cutting 5% of the discretionary portion of the federal budget would lead to imminent disaster. Most departments have some amount of reserves in various forms that they can tap into in order to minimize the impact of these cuts over a relatively short period. This meant nothing horrible happened when the sequester first began to bite on 1 March.
However, this doesn't mean that the sequester is harmless. Suppose the 5% cutback rule was applied to any major corporation, even a highly profitable one like Verizon or Apple. Surely these companies could find ways to reduce their operating expenses by 5%. They could put off hiring workers to fill vacancies. They may delay renovating office space. Perhaps they would freeze or cut some workers' pay.
In the short-run, there would probably be little change in the company's ability to operate. After all, much of what they do is already baked into the cake. Verizon is going to be a huge and highly profitable wireless and phone company in 2013 and 2014 even if they cut back their marketing and don't do proper maintenance and care for their network for six months or a year. In time, of course, the cutbacks will take a toll and likely lead to serious loss of market share and profits.
In the case of the federal government, we will see departments that are less able to do their jobs over time. This has been highlighted most clearly at the National Institutes of Health, where many promising lines of research were abandoned because of the sequester. But there will be similar stories in other departments.
While kicking federal employees is apparently great sport for many, over time these people will look for other jobs and those who will replace them will likely be less qualified. Most people don't want to work at a job where their pay and hours can be cut at any time for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance.
Employers in the private sector understand this fact, even if it too complicated for members of Congress. This means that we can expect future government employees, like air traffic controllers, meat inspectors, and FBI agents, to be less qualified and committed than the current crew. The Wall Street Journal might think it is some great victory that this deterioration has not been evident six months after the sequester, but people with more knowledge of the business world might be less impressed.
But the deterioration of government services might be the least important damage done by the sequester. The more visible and certain damage is the slower growth of the economy and higher unemployment.
Businesses hire people and undertake investment when they see demand for their product and/or have a new innovative idea. Outside of Wall Street Journal editorial page land, no business increases employment or undertakes investment because the government has laid off workers and cut back spending. This means that the government cutbacks directly reduce employment and curtail growth.
In the last two years, the government sector has shed 200,000 jobs. In a comparable period in the last recovery (August 2003 to August 2005), it added more than 300,000 jobs. This difference of 500,000 jobs would have a substantial impact on the labor market, especially when we consider that spending by these workers can be expected to increase the employment impact by at least 50%, bringing the total gain to 750,000 workers.
We can tell a similar story about growth, which has averaged just 2.2% over the last two years. This pace is less than most estimates of the economy's potential growth rate, which means that rather than making up ground lost in the recession, we have been falling further behind the economy's potential level of output. According to the Congressional Budget Office we are losing roughly $1tn in output a year because of the lack of demand in the economy.
So we know the sequester will give us deteriorating government services, higher unemployment, and slower economic growth. That's the track record which prompts the Wall Street Journal's boasts – and the GOP's misguided actions – in favor of even more austerity.
Cutbacks in government spending directly reduce employment and curtail growth. Unfortunately, Republicans don't get that
Dean Baker
theguardian.com, Monday 30 September 2013 10.24 EDT
Jump to comments (89)
A member of the military stands guard at sun rise before the presidential inauguration in front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC.
A member of the military stands guard at sun rise before the presidential inauguration in front of the US Capitol in Washington DC. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
Here we go again: the GOP is ready to stall the US economy and shut down the government in a crusade to cut government spending. Proponents of austerity both in the United States and Europe are eager to claim success for their policies. In spite of economies that look awful by normal standards, austerity advocates are able to claim victory for their policies by creating a new meaning for the word.
In Europe, we have the bizarre story of both George Osborne, the UK's chancellor of the exchequer, and Olli Rehn, the European Union's commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, claiming success for their austerity policies based on one quarter of growth. Apparently, they are arguing that because their policies did not lead to a never-ending recession, they are a success. Remarkably, they seem very proud of this fact.
In the United States, we were treated to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) boasting of the success of the 2011 debt ceiling agreement on the eve of another standoff on the budget and the debt ceiling. The measure of success in this case appears to be that the sequester budget cuts put in place by the agreement are still in place and that the economy has not collapsed as a result. By this standard the WSJ has a case, but as with the austerity crew in Europe, this is a rather pathetic bar.
First, it is worth noting that many of the disaster warnings about the sequester from President Obama and the Democrats were grossly exaggerated. There was no plausible story in which cutting 5% of the discretionary portion of the federal budget would lead to imminent disaster. Most departments have some amount of reserves in various forms that they can tap into in order to minimize the impact of these cuts over a relatively short period. This meant nothing horrible happened when the sequester first began to bite on 1 March.
However, this doesn't mean that the sequester is harmless. Suppose the 5% cutback rule was applied to any major corporation, even a highly profitable one like Verizon or Apple. Surely these companies could find ways to reduce their operating expenses by 5%. They could put off hiring workers to fill vacancies. They may delay renovating office space. Perhaps they would freeze or cut some workers' pay.
In the short-run, there would probably be little change in the company's ability to operate. After all, much of what they do is already baked into the cake. Verizon is going to be a huge and highly profitable wireless and phone company in 2013 and 2014 even if they cut back their marketing and don't do proper maintenance and care for their network for six months or a year. In time, of course, the cutbacks will take a toll and likely lead to serious loss of market share and profits.
In the case of the federal government, we will see departments that are less able to do their jobs over time. This has been highlighted most clearly at the National Institutes of Health, where many promising lines of research were abandoned because of the sequester. But there will be similar stories in other departments.
While kicking federal employees is apparently great sport for many, over time these people will look for other jobs and those who will replace them will likely be less qualified. Most people don't want to work at a job where their pay and hours can be cut at any time for reasons that have nothing to do with their performance.
Employers in the private sector understand this fact, even if it too complicated for members of Congress. This means that we can expect future government employees, like air traffic controllers, meat inspectors, and FBI agents, to be less qualified and committed than the current crew. The Wall Street Journal might think it is some great victory that this deterioration has not been evident six months after the sequester, but people with more knowledge of the business world might be less impressed.
But the deterioration of government services might be the least important damage done by the sequester. The more visible and certain damage is the slower growth of the economy and higher unemployment.
Businesses hire people and undertake investment when they see demand for their product and/or have a new innovative idea. Outside of Wall Street Journal editorial page land, no business increases employment or undertakes investment because the government has laid off workers and cut back spending. This means that the government cutbacks directly reduce employment and curtail growth.
In the last two years, the government sector has shed 200,000 jobs. In a comparable period in the last recovery (August 2003 to August 2005), it added more than 300,000 jobs. This difference of 500,000 jobs would have a substantial impact on the labor market, especially when we consider that spending by these workers can be expected to increase the employment impact by at least 50%, bringing the total gain to 750,000 workers.
We can tell a similar story about growth, which has averaged just 2.2% over the last two years. This pace is less than most estimates of the economy's potential growth rate, which means that rather than making up ground lost in the recession, we have been falling further behind the economy's potential level of output. According to the Congressional Budget Office we are losing roughly $1tn in output a year because of the lack of demand in the economy.
So we know the sequester will give us deteriorating government services, higher unemployment, and slower economic growth. That's the track record which prompts the Wall Street Journal's boasts – and the GOP's misguided actions – in favor of even more austerity.
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Job killer.
SigmundFraud
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Posts
- 823
just means that many more going to collect unemployment or welfare.
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
if no one noticed that they didn't show up for work today ... then those jobs are not jobs...they are welfare "jobs" so terminate them and save the tax payer some money as the ponzi plan
dan_c00000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,907
Kind of like jenn does!
TheLordWinter
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2013
- Posts
- 278
Your zealotry is admirable, if misguided.
You are also a textbook example of the dangers and pitfalls of indoctrination. Please, seek help so you can escape the political brainwashing you've been subjected to all your life.
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
welfare is your crack ... just say no!
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
How much revenue was lost because of this shutdown?
Major federal tourist attractions were closed. No Statue of Liberty tours, no tours of Ellis Island, National Parks: closed, the list goes on and on.
Major federal tourist attractions were closed. No Statue of Liberty tours, no tours of Ellis Island, National Parks: closed, the list goes on and on.
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
well, did anyone miss these mia government workers? clearly the bulk of those jobs are nothing more then glorified welfare payments
so save the tax payer some money!
do you have any idea how much money tax payers could save if they 86'd 800,000 ponzi loving government workers!?!?!
800,000 is just a 1st step - to the number of government workers we need to fire
so save the tax payer some money!
do you have any idea how much money tax payers could save if they 86'd 800,000 ponzi loving government workers!?!?!
800,000 is just a 1st step - to the number of government workers we need to fire
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
proof that we don't need these people ... fire them all!
Similar threads
